the expiation had intended divorce as it was understood in pre-Islamic times, yet this did not constitute divorce. Ibn al-Mājishūn therefore held that zihār takes effect through the wording alone, irrespective of intention, even when the man comes seeking a religious ruling concerning what is between him and Allah. His position would require the same ruling concerning divorce. This is Mālik’s position in al-Mudawwana regarding a man who says to his wife, “You are released,” then says, “I meant from bonds.”

The basis for disagreement on this point is found in al-Mudawwana. Ibn al-Mājishūn did not hold that divorce takes effect when a man intends it by saying, “You are to me like my mother’s back,” because this is not an expression of divorce: Allah has excluded it from such expressions. Thus, according to his position, if someone uses wording that is not an expression of divorce but intends divorce thereby, divorce does not take effect. This is also Mutarrif’s position in al-Thamāniya and his report from Mālik. Ashhab said that divorce does not take effect unless the man intends that she become divorced upon his completing the utterance, rather than through the utterance itself. This position has no sound basis. Ashhab also reported from Mālik that it constitutes divorce if he does not mention the back, and zihār if he does.

All this disagreement concerns cases in which he intends divorce. If he has no particular intention, or intends zihār, it constitutes zihār whether he mentions the back or not. Some scholars have interpreted the passage in al-Mudawwana in light of Ashhab’s report from Mālik. Abū Ishāq al-Tūnisī stated that this was Ibn al-Qāsim’s position in Ibn al-Mawwāz’s book. The correct approach, however, is to interpret the passage in al-Mudawwana in light of ‘Īsā’s report from Ibn al-Qāsim.

Abū Bakr al-Abharī relied on Ashhab’s report and said: “An explicit pronouncement of zihār constitutes zihār even if divorce is intended, just as an explicit pronouncement of divorce constitutes divorce even if zihār is intended.” This does not accord with Ibn al-Qāsim’s position as reported by ‘Īsā. Rather, he differs on both counts. He holds that if a man says to his wife, “You are divorced,” then says, “I intended zihār by that,” zihār becomes binding through his admission of his intention, and divorce through the wording he openly pronounced. We have already explained his position concerning zihār.

Section

As for zihār by comparison to a woman outside the prohibited degrees of marriage, there are three positions. The first is Ibn al-Mājishūn’s position: such a comparison does not constitute zihār, whether he explicitly mentions zihār or not, and whether he intends it or not. His wife is divorced through his pronouncement comparing her to such a woman, unless he means that she is like so-and-so in being of little account to him, or something similar. His stated intention is then accepted, and nothing becomes binding upon him. I have seen it stated by one of